Comparative Civilizations Review

Volume 38 Article 3
Number 38 Spring 1998

4-1-1998

What Is Civilization?—A New Approach

Shuntaro Ito
Reitaku University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr

Recommended Citation
Ito, Shuntaro (1998) "What Is Civilization?—A New Approach," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 38 :
No. 38 , Article 3.
Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol38/iss38/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For
more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
 Ito: What Is Civilization?—A New Approach

What Is Civilization?
— A New Approach*
SHUNTARO ITO

The International Society for the Comparative Study of

Civilizations is a gathering of scholars which is devoted to the
study of civilizations, whatever they may be.'
What are civilizations? The concept itself is often vague, uti-
lized differently by various writers and thinkers. I would like to
make clear my concept of civilization and contrast this concept to
that of "culture."
How do civilization and culture differ?
As you know, Kroeber and Kluckhohn gave us such a variety
of definitions of culture in their book Culture — A Critical Review
of Concepts and Definitions that we cannot help but have diffi-
culty in choosing the best. One very likely candidate is perhaps
the most famous definition. Edward Tyler defines it as follows:
Culture, or civilization ... is that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any
other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
society.
Here, he does not distinguish between culture and civiliza-
tion. Rather, his definition includes both.
I would begin, therefore, by attempting to distinguish
between the two terms, culture and civilization.
As I stated in the last Presidential Address, I think we
humans have come to our present state by experiencing five major
revolutions, social turning points. These have been the Anthropic
Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution, the Urban Revolution,
the Axial Revolution, and the Scientific Revolution.
We can use the word culture for all that man has made (pro-
duced or manufactured) since the Anthropic Revolution, since the
beginning of the modern human race.

*This paper is based on the Presidential Address delivered at the 26th Annual
Meeting of the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, in 1997.
Culture derives from the Latin word cultura, the verb form of

Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1998 1

 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 38 [1998], No. 38, Art. 3

6 COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS REVIEW

which is colere — to cultivate, to take care of, to practice. Culture

is not what naturally exists but what is made artificially by
humans. Therefore, it has a kind of pattern. For example,
Olduvai culture and Acheul culture have a definite pattern of
complex tools, of stone implements. In this sense, the Anthropic
Revolution, which started to produce stone tools or implements,
is nothing but the birth of culture.
The Agricultural Revolution worked upon nature by a more
complex technique. This is, of course, culture in a higher sense,
namely agri-culture. In this context, we may recall the Jarmo cul-
ture of Mesopotamia or the Gerzeh culture of Egypt, both during
the Agricultural stage.
In contrast to this concept of culture, the word civilization
derives from the Latin civilisatio. Civis means city and civitas is
city-state. Civilis stands for civilian and civilitas for citizenship.
Therefore, civilization means "to have the status of citizenship or
to form a city state."
Hence, according to my division of five stages, all those
stages can be called civilization after the Urban Revolution which
created city states, a legal system, social stratification and the
invention of scripts. Thus, we may cite Mesopotamian
Civilization, Egyptian Civilization, Indus Civilization, Shang
Civilization.
Civilizations form larger networks than do culture(s); the for-
mer spreads far more widely. For example: unlike the narrow
area of the Gerzeh culture in Lower Egypt, the Egyptian civiliza-
tion was widely spread out, expanding through an extensive basin
of the Nile River; in it, organization occurred on a large scale.
Generally speaking, it is characteristic of civilization to have this
kind of large scale and more complex organizations, institutions,
and integration — the necessary consequences of the Urban
Revolution.
Ancient Greek Civilization and Ancient Chinese Civilization
after the Spring and Autumn Ages — civilizations after the Axial
Revolution — are examples of more advanced civilizations.
Modern civilization, after the Scientific Revolution of the 17th
Century, is the most advanced civilization.
Culture versus civilization — we may say that civilization
became culture after the Urban Revolution and so it continues

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol38/iss38/3 2
 Ito: What Is Civilization?—A New Approach

Shuntaro Ito 7

into the present-day Scientific Civilization. Therefore, civiliza-

tion is a special and developed form of culture, a specific higher
state of culture.
This conclusion concerning the relation of culture and civi-
lization can, I suppose, be widely accepted. I think it also coin-
cides with most cultural anthropologists' definition of civilization.
However, a problem arises from this diachronic relation of culture
and civilization: since cultures exist throughout all five stages but
civilizations only begin with the Urban Revolution, it follows that
culture and civilization are coexistent after the Urban Revolution
stage. Thus, we need a new idea: the synchronic relationship
between culture and civilization.
What I am calling a new approach in the title of this paper
refers precisely to this kind of synchronic relation between civi-
lization and culture. I would like to propose a novel idea, one
which, I think, would help to explain the past well and is also
fruitful for the future.
Let us image a sphere which represents the total way of life of
human groups in a certain area. I call it the "life-sphere." At the
inner core of this sphere, there are "ethos," "ideological f o r m s "
and "value-judgments" which are peculiar to the people of a cer-
tain group conducive to their way of life. I propose to call this
inner core of the life-sphere "culture." The outer shell of the
sphere represents "the institution," "the organization" or "the
apparatus" necessary for the working operation of the life-sphere.
I propose to call the outer shell "civilization." We can desig-
nate this relationship as a homocentric sphere, as follows:

Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1998 3

 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 38 [1998], No. 38, Art. 3

8 COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS REVIEW

Here, civilization is, metaphorically speaking, a form of

"hardware" which makes the apparatus necessary for human con-
duct. Culture, on the other hand, is a form of "software" which
operates the civilizational apparatus, those organizations and
institutions essential to a civilization.
The two concepts — culture and civilization — are thus
closely connected. They are tied in that civilization (i.e., institu-
tions, organization, apparatus) is formed reflecting culture (i.e.,
ethos, value-judgment, and ways of thinking peculiar to the life-
sphere or cultural area). If a form of civilization is modified for
any reason (for example, by the influence of another civilization),
culture is also modified.
Nevertheless, we should note the fact that civilization has a
tendency to become relatively independent of culture, once the
former is established. I would like to call this phenomenon the
independence of civilization from culture. Therefore, civiliza-
tion, which was once systematized as hardware, often becomes
independent of the culture which has produced it and can be trans-
mitted into another civilizational life-sphere. This we may call
"Civilizational Transfer."
Civilization and Culture are thus distinguishable although
inter-related.
Normally, science and technology, political institutions, eco-
nomic organizations, and legal systems can be understood as
aspects of civilization, while the realm of philosophy, religion and
art reside in culture. But there is a point to note. Science and
technology are now anywhere transferable as an apparatus and
institution. In this sense, they belong to civilization, but the
"Scientific Revolution" of the 17th Century, which created the
origins of modern science, was closely connected with European
ideological forms at that time. The birth of modern science itself
was a cultural phenomenon which was based on ethos, values,
and ways of thinking in 17th Century Europe.
And, contrarily, religion, which usually belongs to the field of
culture, must be thought of itself as a form of civilization, when
it is organized in a certain order and institutionalized as a mission
penetrating other cultural spheres. For example: Christian mis-
sions in fact were attempts at civilizational transfers. Therefore,
we cannot simply say that science is civilization and religion is

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol38/iss38/3 4
 Ito: What Is Civilization?—A New Approach

Shuntaro Ito 9

culture. We must pay attention to the functioning of these

processes in particular cases.
Thus far I have designated "Civilization" as the outer shell of
a life-sphere and "Culture" as the inner core. I should also add
the following:
Civilization has a centrifugal tendency to expand outward,
while culture has a centripetal tendency to concentrate inward.
Therefore, the contacts of life-spheres occur at the interface of the
outer shell civilizations. I call this "civilizational contact."
In the late Edo period, and at the beginning of the Meiji
Restoration, such civilizational contacts occurred between the
Japanese and Euro-American civilizations. At that time a sizable
civilizational apparatus was introduced into Japan f r o m Europe
and the U.S. Nevertheless, the inner core of Japanese culture was
never lost, and these civilizational contacts were moderated by
the Japanese ethos.
Today, the Japanese civilizational apparatus may be intro-
duced into other societies as, for example, "Japanese management
techniques." It is true that Japanese management was originally
formed in accordance with the Japanese cultural ethos. However,
it is possible that, as a part of the civilizational apparatus, it has
become independent of the Japanese culture. What we should
note in this case is that when these civilizational instruments are
transmitted to other societies, they c o m e out of Japanese culture
and can and will be operated by the ethos of the society which
introduces them.
Even if a society absorbs Japanese management techniques as
economic instruments, therefore, the society's culture does not
become Japanese culture — just as Japanese culture never
became European culture, in spite of the fact that the European
civilizational apparatus was introduced. Civilizational apparatus
can be operated — in fact, it is operated — within the culture of
the society which introduces it. We should think that civiliza-
tional exchange has in general this kind of structure.
At present, we have a major problem of civilizational contacts
between the United States and Japan. W h e n civilizational con-
tacts do not go smoothly, frictions occur — in this case, econom-
ic frictions. Concerning this friction, U.S. government officials
often say that it is due to Japanese culture, especially the Japanese

Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1998 5

 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 38 [1998], No. 38, Art. 3

10 COMPARATIVE CIVILIZATIONS REVIEW

language. This utterance is really nonsensical. Frictions can

never be completely overcome unless cultures become the same,
so we must conclude that the problem is inescapable unless
Japanese culture becomes American culture, or vice versa.
This would be an unhappy conclusion and it represents an
error of thought. In fact, what confronts us here is a civilization-
al apparatus or institution which constitutes the outer shell of life-
spheres and does not necessarily impinge upon the cultural con-
tents existing in the inner core. It is a problem of amending eco-
nomic and legal systems.
We can solve this problem by the adjustment of civilizational
institutions. For example, tariff barriers may be lowered or a lim-
itation placed on exports. Thus, we should not confound civiliza-
tional problems with cultural ones.
Every life sphere, commensurate with its civilizational appa-
ratus, can become part of world civilization while at the same
time keeping its cultural identity.
I call this "Civilizational Adjustment." With such civiliza-
tional adjustments, life spheres in the world will have more and
more in common with civilizational elements.

Still, the world will never become uniform, not only cultural-
ly but also civilizationally, because the exchanged civilizational
apparatus will be operated by the proper culture of the life sphere
or society and will create new forms of civilization.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol38/iss38/3 6
 Ito: What Is Civilization?—A New Approach

Shuntaro Ito 11

I believe that with this novel approach to Civilization and

Culture, we can have a new understanding of the ability of civi-
lizations and cultures to coexist rather than come to inevitable
clashes.
What may we conclude?
First, there is a necessity to distinguish between civilization
and culture. To so distinguish, we may argue that the life sphere
of a community consists of two parts — civilization and culture.
We can also maintain that civilization, the outer shell of the
life sphere, consists of the following elements: institution, orga-
nization, system, and apparatus (e.g., political institutions, eco-
nomic organization, legal systems, science and technology).
Similarly, we can maintain that culture, the inner core of the
life sphere, consists of the following elements: ethos, value judg-
ment, aesthetic feeling, the ideal form in philosophy, religion, and
art.
Furthermore, there are interactions between civilization and
culture within the life sphere.
Second, because civilization is centrifugal, expansive, and
universal and culture is centripetal, cohesive, and unique, we look
forward to the universality of civilization and the multiplicity of
cultures. We emphasize the possibility of the coexistence of
many different human life spheres — humanity, after all, must
continue to share an increasingly c o m m o n civilizational appara-
tus while retaining the unique cultural forms we have produced.
Thus, we have a new approach to civilization and culture, a
p a r a d i g m which e n a b l e s us to o v e r c o m e the s u p p o s e d l y
inevitable clash of civilizations.

Reitaku University

Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1998 7